Volume 43 Number 33
                    Produced: Fri Jul  2  6:16:24 EDT 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Ain Hekdesh Lavodat Kochavim
         [Martin Stern]
Child Determining Kashrut of a Sefer Torah
         [Ira L. Jacobson]
Custom of naming after deceased family members
         [Shimon Lebowitz]
Milk and Meat
         [Martin Stern]
Quoting partial p'sukim (2)
         [Mark Steiner, Shimon Lebowitz]
An unidentified Rashi (8)
         [Shlomo & Syma Spiro, Ira L. Jacobson, Ilana Goldstein Saks,
Shimon Lebowitz, Alex Heppenheimer, Gevaryahu@aol.com, Gershon
Dubin, Yisrael Dubitsky]


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:36:36 +0100
Subject: Re: Ain Hekdesh Lavodat Kochavim

on 30/6/04 2:09 am, Yehuda Landy <nzion@...> wrote:

> I agree with your feelings and actually share/d your resentment.
> However from a halachic point of view, we have a rule "ain hekdesh
> lavodat kochavim" - meaning verbally designating an item for avodah
> zorah, does not forbid the item. I therefore cannot see any reason to
> forbid using the decorations.

Could Yehuda give a source for this assertion, I had always assumed that
verbal dedication to avodah zarah was effective. However the Xmas
decorations are not really used for avodah zarah only for decorating
their homes. For most non-Jews today, it is purely a custom and has no
religious significance (minhag avoteihem biyedeihem), something bemoaned
by their religious leaders as "the commercialisation of Xmas". We who
live in Christian countries are perhaps rather oversensitive on this
point possibly because this secularised religious symbolism is indeed
quite attractive to our more assimilated coreligionists.

Martin Stern


From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:48:25 +0300
Subject: Re: Child Determining Kashrut of a Sefer Torah

Y. Askotzky <sofer@...>stated the following on Tue, 29 Jun 2004
09:24:30 +0200:

      One who has thoroughly studied the laws of the letters, such
      as from the Mishnas sofrim (Mishna Brura), yet has no or
      minimal shimush, practical training, would generally not be
      considered an expert to be able decide whether a child may be
      asked other than in clear cut cases such as the leg of the
      vav being in the middle between a yud and a proper vav and
      the like.

In other words, we must ask the child's opinion on what the letter is
only if an expert in the "Laws of Letters" cannot decide.

So what is one to do in an ordinary shul, where the question arises in
the middle of the Torah reading whether the letter is a kaf or a bet, and
no such expert is present to decide whether or not to ask a child?

IRA L. JACOBSON         


From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:20:14 +0300
Subject: Re: Custom of naming after deceased family members

> > Interested in knowing when the custom of naming newborn children
> > after deceased family members began.
> When I asked my Rosh Yeshiva this when in post high school yeshiva he
> promptly responded Aharan haKohen & Elishava with their oldest son.

Nadav was named for a deceased family member? 

> There were also Yosef's in the generation around the time of the
> Exodus.

Whom do you mean?

Shimon Lebowitz                           mailto:<shimonl@...>
Jerusalem, Israel            PGP: http://www.poboxes.com/shimonpgp


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:48:02 +0100
Subject: Re: Milk and Meat

on 30/6/04 2:09 am, Harlan Braude <hbraude@...> wrote:
>> ... An hour between milk and meat sounds correct to me.
> They were from Holland?

Perhaps Harlan is unaware that the only Torah prohibition is to eat meat
and milk together. Any waiting interval between the two is meant to
avoid the remote possibility and the actual time is based on custom. The
Shulchan Arukh itself mentions waiting one hour (in order to make sure
that no meat fragments remain stuck between the teeth) as well as six
(so that the stomach should have digested any meat before milk
entered). As far as strict halachah is concerned it is only a problem of
milk after meat since the latter is digested more slowly. After milk,
cleaning out the mouth, by eating something hard like a piece of bread
or drinking (or both) is sufficient. One should not confuse relatively
recent chumras with basic halachic requirements.

Martin Stern


From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:15:40 +0300
Subject: RE: Quoting partial p'sukim

A much more serious problem is in the saying of kedushah where "kadosh,
kadosh, kadosh etc." is a part pasuk commencing after a zakef katan, a
much more minor disjunction. There is an opinion (not generally accepted
in practice as far as I know) that because of this one should not say
the kedushah in Yotser Or when davenning in the absence of a minyan.

I don't believe that this (not reciting part of a verse) is the reason
for the opinion for not saying the kedushat yotzer without a minyan.
(For example, the siddur of R. Saadya Gaon has two versions of the
yotzer or prayer, one without a minyan and one, containing the kedusha,
with.  I believe that the Vilner Gaon accepted this practice.)  The
reason is, that kedusha (and any "davar shebikdusha") must be said in an
"edah" or minyan, as the Torah says, "Venikdashti betokh `adat benei
yisrael."  (IMHO saying kedusha in private would thus nullify (mevatel)
a positive commandment.)  The reason for our practice, i.e. saying
kedushat yotzer even without a minyan, is, as the rishonim point out, is
that kedushat yotzer is not a real "kedusha", in that it is not an act
done by the congregation itself, as in the "real" kedusha "nekadesh et
shimkha", but rather a description of the kedusha done by the
angels in heaven.  As such, by the way, there is no real problem of
"half a pasuk," IMHO, because the intention is not to "read a pasuk"
publicly, but to quote the angels, whose words are indeed part of a
verse.  The rule is that one can quote half a verse where the intention
is other than to quote the verse.  An example is the words "Hashem
tzivaot yagen aleyhem" which is said at the end of "shofarot" in the
Musaf of Rosh Hashanah.  This is a half a pasuk (actually the
continuation of the pasuk said before it in the mahzor), but is said
because the intention is not to quote a pasuk but to offer a prayer in
conclusion of shofarot, as we continue "ken tagen `al `amkha yisrael
bishlomekha." (This explanation is to be found, of all places in the
Kitzur Shulkhan Arukh, the older editions with the footnotes--readers
will get more respect for this sefer and its author it they get this
edition and learn the footnotes.)

There is also the kedusha desidra (Uva letziyon goel "kadosh") which we
also say in private, but here it would be proper to recite the verse
"vekara zeh el zeh - kadosh" using the te`amim (i.e. in the melody of
the haftarah) in order to avoid the prohibition of saying a davar
shebikdusha privately.  Since here we are saying the entire pasuk, there
would be no objection to reading the pasuk with the te`amim.  I would
agree that there might be a "problem" doing this with kedushat yotzer
since, indeed, we do not quote the whole pasuk, so IMHO I think that
there is no point in saying "kadosh" with the melody of the haftarah
during the kedushat yotzer (involving us, indeed, in "quoting" a half

Mark Steiner

From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:20:16 +0300
Subject: Re: Quoting partial p'sukim

It is in fact my custom at Kedusha to always stop after "kakasuv (I
daven Ashkenazis) `al yad neviecha" and wait for the shatz. When he is
saying "vekara...." I say with him so as to get to "kadosh..." together
with the tzibur.

I learnt this from my father who I believe told me it is an old family

Shimon Lebowitz                           mailto:<shimonl@...>
Jerusalem, Israel            PGP: http://www.poboxes.com/shimonpgp


From: Shlomo & Syma Spiro <spiro@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:40:30 +0200
Subject: An unidentified Rashi

bh, yom revi'i balak

To the Chipmans on the Rashi quoted by the sefat emet   Try 
rashi  Leviticus 14:4   sheni tola'at

From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:51:06 +0300
Subject: Re: An unidentified Rashi

           I'm wondering if anyone can help me in locating the
      source of an unidentified Rashi.  Sefat Emet, on Parshat
      Hukkat, begins his second teaching for 5631 (the first year
      of his teaching), with the followng words:  "Be-Rashi z"l: 
      gavoah shenitga'eh ve-heit yashpil atzmo," etc. ("In Rashi
      obm:  a haughty (or "high") person who became proud and
      sinned should cast himself low").  He then proceeds as is his
      way to offer a Hasidic interpretation of this passage. 
      Nowhere does he identify the verse on which Rashi is
      commenting here, nor the subject, nor does he even  state
      explicitly that it is from parshat Hukkat (but if not, why
      would he open a derasha for Hukkat with these words?).
      Skimming the Rashi on the parsha, I was unable to find it.
          Does anyone know where this comes from?

This is a bit tricky.  It is in Rashi, on the "second cycle" commenting
on Bemidbar 19:6 (as you guessed, in Huqqat), but appearing in his
commentary on 19:22.  On "`Etz erez ve'ezov usheni tola`at," he quotes
from Moshe Hadarshan, and the actual expression is "Siman shehagavoah
shenitga'eh vehata, yashpil `atzmo ke'ezov vetola`at veyitkaper lo." 

He has previously explained that the ezov is the smallest of trees, and
the erez the tallest.

IRA L. JACOBSON         

From: Ilana Goldstein Saks <lonnie@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:07:29 +0200
Subject: Re: An unidentified Rashi

This idea appears twice in Rashi:

The Bamidbar 19:22 (para aduma) and   Vayikra 14, 4 (tzaraat).

Ilana Goldstein Saks

From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:20:20 +0300
Subject: Re: An unidentified Rashi

Bamidbar 19:22
"etz erez ve-ezov ushni tola`at".

Thanks to the Halamish CDROM. :-)

From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 07:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: An unidentified Rashi

This is from Rashi's additional comments (based on the teachings of R'
Moshe HaDarshan) on the first few verses of Parshas Chukkas. The quoted
text is from his commentary to verse 6, explaining why cedarwood (a
tall tree) and hyssop (a lowly herb) were used in the Parah Adumah
ritual. (In most editions, these additional comments are printed after
Rashi's peshat commentary to verse 22.)

(Incidentally, the third word in the quoted text should be punctuated
as "ve-chata" ("and sinned") rather than "ve-cheit," which would mean
"and a sin.")

Rashi also cites a somewhat similar idea in Vayikra 14:4, in reference
to the ritual performed when a metzora is cured.

Kol tuv,

From: <Gevaryahu@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:15:53 EDT
Subject: An unidentified Rashi

There are two sets of Rashi's interpretation to verses 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9
of Chapter 19, this set of interpretation appears after verse 22 before
Chapter 20, in Parshat Hukkat. Some Rashi editions put these
interpretations as part of verse 22, while others recognize them as
belonging to the earlier verses and indicated the verse numbers which
they belong to. Rashi himself quote this entire section as a quote
"he'etakti miyesodo shel Rabbi Moshe ha-darshan," and as such, did not to
commingle them with his own interpretations, and kept the quote intact.

Gilad J. Gevaryahu

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:35:52 -0400
Subject: An unidentified Rashi

It's on pasuk vav in the beginning of Chukas, but in the second round
when Rashi gives the derush explanation.  It starts at the end of
parashas para.


From: Yisrael Dubitsky <Yidubitsky@...>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:18:09 -0400
Subject: Re: An unidentified Rashi

Bamidbar 19:22 sv ets erez ve-ezov...


End of Volume 43 Issue 33